[quote=Southstar,Dec. 05 2012,10:05][/quote]Gary, I will get to your post when time allows...

Quote

Now it's really silly to say you don't have the math to support your idea of quantum creation. In QM if you don't have the maths that support your view you don't have dipshit. It's the equivalent of saying I have no idea what supports my words. But i'm in it for the game so: okay using words please describe in detail how quantum entanglement creates t-rexes (in a little more detail than "QM does it")

Oh...but you DO have the math to support abiogenesis, speciation of Archaeopteryx and people magically morphing out of monkeys? Let's see it...When we see your walk match your talk mathematically, then I'll try to come up to speed... ;)

Quote

Which is it Jerry?

I'll stick with both...I'm silly enough to posit that children come from parents and that they are designed via DNA as it recombines in a cell.....guess I'm just silly that way.. :)

Quote

That really depends on the definition of "intelligent". If by intelligent you mean that it has foresight, ability to make pondered guesses and conscious thought then no DNA is not intelligent.

Who says that intelligence is only pondered guesses and conscious thought? We need to get past the thinking that all intelligence hinges on an IQ test. That limits it only to humans (pretty much, anyhow)

Intelligence is really just the ability to process information..(think AI in computers). Bacteria show intelligence when they flagellate away from toxic molecules or toward food...robots and computers can actually talk to you. Dumb particles show intelligence when they "know" that an observer is present watching them and change their behavior accordingly. And DNA is not much different than a computer hard drive as discussed above.

Quote

Further I would say no because nothing in nature is designed.

Whoops...gotta stop you there because that isn't true....EVERYTHING in nature is designed. Sand dunes are designed by wind--accretion, the Grand Canyon was designed by water erosion, rabbits are designed by momma rabbits and DNA, corn is designed by seeds....

Quote

A design by definition comes before a creation so you are saying that future mutations are stored in existing plans somewhere. Please specifiy where this information is held and how you know about it.

Don't know what you are talking about. I don't believe this, nor have I said anything to lead you that direction..

Mutations (for the most part) are spontaneous events....

When the wind designs a sand-dune, is it then doing it intentionally?

Or have you redefined the word "design" to include unintentional events?

Because if you have, you've just destroyed the whole Intelligent design "movement"

There is no escaping the wrath of Kathy Martin’s legend. After getting reelected (instead of thrown off the board ASAP like many vowed to make happen) then doing surprisingly well impressing her worse critics (at least a little) there are new what she likes to see on the way for more “hands on” standards she is now passing the torch to the another to who now only has to follow the easy path of formality of approving what all were hoping she could approve of.

Beat that shit, blipey!

Gary may be a worse writer than morphodyke. Yeah, I said it. Worse.

Sorry for at least a dozen (from being half-asleep) typos. That one went hours past midnight, from having to add a phrase here or there or more detail so that the complete thought is well enough explained that at least the science is all there. In the method that works the best for forums like this one or Planet Source Code perfect grammar and typo free is not required, energy goes into connecting all the thoughts required to explain a model.

In this case I had the already daunting task of explaining the model of the universe Jerry was describing where each particle is intelligent enough to become an all-knowing collective group mind. At that point in behavioral development the same atomic species of similar states all have the same Data in their RAM. The model no longer needs each particle to be individually intelligent, still work 100% like before without Guess in the circuit and computer RAM space for each. Only need one RAM memory addressed by number of electrons, neutrons, protons, possible energy states. The computer model then reaches a milestone in its development where it has gone past being intelligent. Just the bots used to "train" the all-knowing behavior to behave as in Physics would need Guess in the circuit and be intelligent, after that it none the less still exist as before, connected by single shared RAM space. A group mind which formed from collective intelligence of a physics model where all particles in it are intelligent, even where that is not how real matter became (at least for the most part) all-knowing like this. Working towards all-knowing can ultimately eliminate RAM space galore, while suddenly allowing very large numbers of particles to exist in its virtual world

I thought I should add that detail. It's one of the nice features of this theory.

Game, set and match. Denyse doesn't come close to this.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

The model no longer needs each particle to be individually intelligent, still work 100% like before without Guess in the circuit and computer RAM space for each. Only need one RAM memory addressed by number of electrons, neutrons, protons, possible energy states.

Gary, this is completely incoherent. Until you learn how to write sentences you should not be attempting to write paragraphs.

cloud computing for T.A.R.D.

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Jerry, you have stated that individuals speciate. This means that you believe there are instances when a daughter cannot interbreed with her direct ancestors (st least according to your definition of speciate). Otherwise, what do you mean by individuals speciate?

Once again.....individuals are just the sub-units that comprise a population....People: you are so mixed up on this that HERE is one reason people laugh at you and reject the whole ball of wax.

You PhDs participating in this thread need to grasp it so you will stop teaching illogical clap trap in your class rooms and calling it science:

Populations CANNOT speciate unless the individuals within it ALSO speciate. The population is made up of those individuals.....You can't EVEN HAVE a population without individuals as a group to constitute the population.

Darwinist: Look, I have a group of nickles.

Guy with common sense: Oh really, I don't see any nickles at all.

Darwinist: Oh. I don't have any individual nickles, just an entire group of them....

The whole world scratches their heads trying to figure out why insanity doesn't apply here...

So, common sense ought to tell you that if a population changes, so must the individuals within it because that's what a population IS.

Quote

Really, address the color question. Is there a reason you keep ignoring it?

Of course I'm ignoring it because it is not analogous to speciation to any extent.

You're attempting to use a scenario where there is no clear boundary of change to represent a situation where there most certainly is one. It's another attempt to twist logic........

You're the one calling "the Creator" "God". You're the one calling "that manipulator" "God". You're the one calling QM/particles "God". You're the one attributing "simple cells, then clusters of cells, then more complex organisms and finally the ultimate product: homo sapiens with fine minds that make us doctors, lawyers and engineers" to creation by "God".

since the species Homo sapiens is allegedly the "ultimate product", does that mean, to you, that evolution and/or creation* ended (everywhere and with everything) at the birth, or creation*, of the very first human*?

No.

Quote

*I'm not saying that there was creation, or a very first human, but I'm pretty sure that you think there was.

LOL....really. You don't think there was a first organism called homo sapiens.......Did the common ancester magically poof out triplets?

It's not quite accurate to say that populations speciate, instead we should say lineages speciate.

Not that you have enough battery power to really comprehend why this matters, but it's been bugging me.

you have a deep confusion about whether individuals or populations are ontologically prior. but, i don't care enough about you as a person to attempt to walk you through this, probably for several reasons including this bullshit

Quote

You PhDs participating in this thread need to grasp it so you will stop teaching illogical clap trap in your class rooms and calling it science

I neeeeeeed you to keep saying stupid shit like this.

Hi, I am Erasmus, FCD and I am a tardaholic. Donny Lou, you are like the nectar of gods for me. I drink every word and still thirst for more. When you and Giggles are spacedocking over which one of you is a bigger tard, I can leg press 1000 lbs. Keep it up love!

Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 05 2012,15:06

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

I haven't answered them up until now because they are really dumb questions and the readers will see that......

Was there 500 bits of information before a human was there to calculate those bits? Here's another one...if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?

And I'm not mad at all. You just need to learn some respect for your fellow man and not deride something sacred to them like their religion.....Doesn't matter if it's Krishna, Bhudda or Allah....people have the right to believe as they wish without harrassment in a free society.

Quote

You and I apparently hold different definitions of the word "specified". Specified is the past tense of specify. To specify something requires a specifier.

Then perhaps you need to come up to speed and at least learn how that term is used in ID before you attempt to debate it.

And since I see you go there again again below with the term 'sky daddy' in your post, our conversation is over. Thanks for your posts

And I'm not mad at all. You just need to learn some respect for your fellow man and not deride something sacred to them like their religion.....Doesn't matter if it's Krishna, Bhudda or Allah....people have the right to believe as they wish without harrassment in a free society.

But they do not have the right to force nonsensical beliefs on people who don't want them.

They also don't have the right to lie, force, threaten or otherwise influence people to follow those beliefs.

They also don't have the right to constantly state wrong information and yell at others for not believing in them.

Do you know what a cladogram is, how it is derived, and what it shows?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

i guess all those fishery managers who enforce catch limits on walleyes and saugers are just being assholes. since they can interbreed, according to Jimmy Ray Humpsniff, they aren't different species after all. and he has obviously never met a fucking botanist

Tell me Cletus why haven't you straightened all these poor deluded people out, since you obviously know more about speciation than the people who wrote the damned book?

Somebody called for a botanist?

Jerry, ever heard of hybrid swarms? What about heterostyly* (e.g. dimorphic pin and thrum flowers) in vascular plants that leads to breeding incompatibility between morphs in the same species. Can you explain how these observations fit into your definition of a species and speciation?

* When reminding myself of the proper term via a bit of googling, I came across the following reference:

Darwin, Charles 1862. On the two forms, or dimorphic condition, in the species of Primula, and on their remarkable sexual relations. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society (Botany) 6, 77–96.

Is there anything that guy didn't know at least something about?

No, sorry...I'm not familiar with those concepts.

Perhaps you could explain them and elucidate how you feel they might negatively affect my musings thus far.

IOW, what have I said that those concepts show to be wrong? I've got an open mind.......

And I'm not mad at all. You just need to learn some respect for your fellow man and not deride something sacred to them like their religion.....Doesn't matter if it's Krishna, Bhudda or Allah....people have the right to believe as they wish without harrassment in a free society.

But they do not have the right to force nonsensical beliefs on people who don't want them.

They also don't have the right to lie, force, threaten or otherwise influence people to follow those beliefs.

They also don't have the right to constantly state wrong information and yell at others for not believing in them.

Do you know what a cladogram is, how it is derived, and what it shows?

... and religious beliefs are not more special than any other ideas. They're not off limits from questioning, criticism or mockery.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

i guess all those fishery managers who enforce catch limits on walleyes and saugers are just being assholes. since they can interbreed, according to Jimmy Ray Humpsniff, they aren't different species after all. and he has obviously never met a fucking botanist

Tell me Cletus why haven't you straightened all these poor deluded people out, since you obviously know more about speciation than the people who wrote the damned book?

Somebody called for a botanist?

Jerry, ever heard of hybrid swarms? What about heterostyly* (e.g. dimorphic pin and thrum flowers) in vascular plants that leads to breeding incompatibility between morphs in the same species. Can you explain how these observations fit into your definition of a species and speciation?

* When reminding myself of the proper term via a bit of googling, I came across the following reference:

Darwin, Charles 1862. On the two forms, or dimorphic condition, in the species of Primula, and on their remarkable sexual relations. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society (Botany) 6, 77–96.

Is there anything that guy didn't know at least something about?

No, sorry...I'm not familiar with those concepts.

Perhaps you could explain them and elucidate how you feel they might negatively affect my musings thus far.

IOW, what have I said that those concepts show to be wrong? I've got an open mind.......

They negatively affect this musing, Jerry:

Quote

You're attempting to use a scenario where there is no clear boundary of change to represent a situation where there most certainly is one.

Where are the clear boundaries of change in a hybrid swarm?

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

i guess all those fishery managers who enforce catch limits on walleyes and saugers are just being assholes. since they can interbreed, according to Jimmy Ray Humpsniff, they aren't different species after all. and he has obviously never met a fucking botanist

Tell me Cletus why haven't you straightened all these poor deluded people out, since you obviously know more about speciation than the people who wrote the damned book?

Somebody called for a botanist?

Jerry, ever heard of hybrid swarms? What about heterostyly* (e.g. dimorphic pin and thrum flowers) in vascular plants that leads to breeding incompatibility between morphs in the same species. Can you explain how these observations fit into your definition of a species and speciation?

* When reminding myself of the proper term via a bit of googling, I came across the following reference:

Darwin, Charles 1862. On the two forms, or dimorphic condition, in the species of Primula, and on their remarkable sexual relations. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society (Botany) 6, 77–96.

Is there anything that guy didn't know at least something about?

No, sorry...I'm not familiar with those concepts.

Perhaps you could explain them and elucidate how you feel they might negatively affect my musings thus far.

IOW, what have I said that those concepts show to be wrong? I've got an open mind.......

They negatively affect this musing, Jerry:

Quote

You're attempting to use a scenario where there is no clear boundary of change to represent a situation where there most certainly is one.

Where are the clear boundaries of change in a hybrid swarm?

Very well...

Now why don't you bring an argument to that effect?

1) Explain what a hybred storm is to the readers.

2) explain how whatever it is in that concept that you believe influenced common descent from protist to mammal, did so.

3) Finally, does this nullify my argment? How?

Sheeze, It's like pulling chicken teeth to get a rational argument out of you people.

From how long it took for me to respond to your last reply to me, I'm OK with being patient.

I also have this from the The National Academy of Sciences:

Quote

What is a theory?

The word “theory” serves so many purposes in the English language that confusion is almost inevitable.Theory has been used to describe concepts ranging from a speculative idea (“it’s just a theory”) to a law of nature(the “theory” of gravity).This report suggests that a useful way to define theory in biology is as a collection of models. Biologists usemodels—which can be verbal, mathematical, visual, or physical—to represent various aspects of nature for particular purposes. Most biological systems are too complex to be described by a single model; often, biologists useseveral models to approach a research question.The models a biologist uses—or the theoretical and conceptual frameworks they apply—inform the entirescientific process, from the tools used, to the experiments done, to the interpretation of the results, and more. Forexample, the techniques a biologist might use to analyze a sequence of DNA would vary depending on the researcher’sconceptual framework. If one’s model of the genome assumes that only those DNA sequences that code forproteins are important, one may use a technique that only analyzes these sequences. An alternative model that assumesthat non-coding DNA sequences have an important role would require a different extraction technique. Onlythe second technique could have discovered that non-coding sequences are responsible for preventing a cell fromturning cancerous or allowing a plant to resist a predatory insect.

You can here see how theory is for models. This Theory of Intelligent Design easily meets the toughest NAS requirements of them all by not allowing non-model evidence for the hypothesis you have. It's not me that has to be satisfied, it's literally the theory that I just speak for. There is a system to be by the letter followed or it's not what the above definition is describing. It's not complicated though. Follows PBS definition for hypothesis for children, where with the right experiment it's quickly shown to be true or false. The one I linked to on YouTube is the same thing. In complicated cases like a model of the universe it gets more difficult to be sure either way, but we don't have to worry about that, it's the same thing for any cosmological model. Where it is impossible for the "group mind" to form where matter and antimatter exist together my hypothesis is false, particles for some reason must be independently intelligent but I would be thrilled my hypothesis looks like its more likely false, because your model would open the box so we have some idea either way. Science is here not dividing up over hypothesis it's working together to develop an experiment.

I sent out a few short replies to the easy ones before being able to get back to you with something complete enough to post. And I'm still adding detail! But at least you know why I (on behalf of what a theory requires) must have things a certain way or it's not a computer model Planet Source Code could get excited over either. There would not even be a computer model to submit for review, that ended up coming from email and award and excellent comments plus 5 stars from two reviewers who gave it an honest going over. That very much indicates how well it's meeting NAS standards for theory. That in turn makes otherwise impossible things happen in the greater mind of science, which would otherwise not believe what they heard at coffee break at the the lab about an ID theory from like a whole other Planet that's actually very good for systems biology already being here to experiment with. It's here how it moves in mysterious ways while in a subtle way amplified by creativity of the culture changers who thrive on scientific revolution too:

The theory has to have the NAS lost for words and all the rest that totally changes how things now go in the very real scientific arena, or else it's not getting excited about there either. No insight into who and what we are, or even pompous establishment deserving rebelling against. The only way all this is possible, is to have a winning scientific method, that works everywhere.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

i guess all those fishery managers who enforce catch limits on walleyes and saugers are just being assholes. since they can interbreed, according to Jimmy Ray Humpsniff, they aren't different species after all. and he has obviously never met a fucking botanist

Tell me Cletus why haven't you straightened all these poor deluded people out, since you obviously know more about speciation than the people who wrote the damned book?

Somebody called for a botanist?

Jerry, ever heard of hybrid swarms? What about heterostyly* (e.g. dimorphic pin and thrum flowers) in vascular plants that leads to breeding incompatibility between morphs in the same species. Can you explain how these observations fit into your definition of a species and speciation?

* When reminding myself of the proper term via a bit of googling, I came across the following reference:

Darwin, Charles 1862. On the two forms, or dimorphic condition, in the species of Primula, and on their remarkable sexual relations. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society (Botany) 6, 77–96.

Is there anything that guy didn't know at least something about?

No, sorry...I'm not familiar with those concepts.

Perhaps you could explain them and elucidate how you feel they might negatively affect my musings thus far.

IOW, what have I said that those concepts show to be wrong? I've got an open mind.......

They negatively affect this musing, Jerry:

Quote

You're attempting to use a scenario where there is no clear boundary of change to represent a situation where there most certainly is one.

Where are the clear boundaries of change in a hybrid swarm?

Very well...

Now why don't you bring an argument to that effect?

1) Explain what a hybred storm is to the readers.

2) explain how whatever it is in that concept that you believe influenced common descent from protist to mammal, did so.

3) Finally, does this nullify my argment? How?

Sheeze, It's like pulling chicken teeth to get a rational argument out of you people.

Why bother? It seems that we would have better luck trying to describe a hybrid swarm to Terri Schiavo.

Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 05 2012,16:23

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Now it's really silly to say you don't have the math to support your idea of quantum creation. In QM if you don't have the maths that support your view you don't have dipshit. It's the equivalent of saying I have no idea what supports my words. But i'm in it for the game so: okay using words please describe in detail how quantum entanglement creates t-rexes (in a little more detail than "QM does it")

Oh...but you DO have the math to support abiogenesis, speciation of Archaeopteryx and people magically morphing out of monkeys? Let's see it...When we see your walk match your talk mathematically, then I'll try to come up to speed... ;)

Quote

Which is it Jerry?

I'll stick with both...I'm silly enough to posit that children come from parents and that they are designed via DNA as it recombines in a cell.....guess I'm just silly that way.. :)

Quote

That really depends on the definition of "intelligent". If by intelligent you mean that it has foresight, ability to make pondered guesses and conscious thought then no DNA is not intelligent.

Who says that intelligence is only pondered guesses and conscious thought? We need to get past the thinking that all intelligence hinges on an IQ test. That limits it only to humans (pretty much, anyhow)

Intelligence is really just the ability to process information..(think AI in computers). Bacteria show intelligence when they flagellate away from toxic molecules or toward food...robots and computers can actually talk to you. Dumb particles show intelligence when they "know" that an observer is present watching them and change their behavior accordingly. And DNA is not much different than a computer hard drive as discussed above.

Quote

Further I would say no because nothing in nature is designed.

Whoops...gotta stop you there because that isn't true....EVERYTHING in nature is designed. Sand dunes are designed by wind--accretion, the Grand Canyon was designed by water erosion, rabbits are designed by momma rabbits and DNA, corn is designed by seeds....

Quote

A design by definition comes before a creation so you are saying that future mutations are stored in existing plans somewhere. Please specifiy where this information is held and how you know about it.

Don't know what you are talking about. I don't believe this, nor have I said anything to lead you that direction..

Mutations (for the most part) are spontaneous events....

When the wind designs a sand-dune, is it then doing it intentionally?

Or have you redefined the word "design" to include unintentional events?

Because if you have, you've just destroyed the whole Intelligent design "movement"

No, I haven't redefined the term design......It is quite proper to think in terms of intelligent design as opposed to natural design.

And when the wind designs a sand dune, is it doing it intentionally? Of course not.

Hey, JerryVonFtKCrossdresser, you never answered my Original Question about choice of distributions.

Gaussian, Poisson or Bernoulli and why. Should be simple. I could answer it in a sentence - without math!

I know you hate math.

Also, have you figured out that Queue Emm is only a framework like the word "color" and to say that Auntie Emm did something is like saying color did something?

Perhaps we need a poll, a general consensus to determine if you, JimmyBobbyFtKay-ee, are stupider than the most stupid tard to ever grace this forum, you buddy Gary's alter-ego, Joe "ice is not water" G.

Seriously, you may be the dumbest fuck to ever represent dumb fuckery and that's saying something.

i guess all those fishery managers who enforce catch limits on walleyes and saugers are just being assholes. since they can interbreed, according to Jimmy Ray Humpsniff, they aren't different species after all. and he has obviously never met a fucking botanist

Tell me Cletus why haven't you straightened all these poor deluded people out, since you obviously know more about speciation than the people who wrote the damned book?

Somebody called for a botanist?

Jerry, ever heard of hybrid swarms? What about heterostyly* (e.g. dimorphic pin and thrum flowers) in vascular plants that leads to breeding incompatibility between morphs in the same species. Can you explain how these observations fit into your definition of a species and speciation?

* When reminding myself of the proper term via a bit of googling, I came across the following reference:

Darwin, Charles 1862. On the two forms, or dimorphic condition, in the species of Primula, and on their remarkable sexual relations. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society (Botany) 6, 77–96.

Is there anything that guy didn't know at least something about?

No, sorry...I'm not familiar with those concepts.

Perhaps you could explain them and elucidate how you feel they might negatively affect my musings thus far.

IOW, what have I said that those concepts show to be wrong? I've got an open mind.......

They negatively affect this musing, Jerry:

Quote

You're attempting to use a scenario where there is no clear boundary of change to represent a situation where there most certainly is one.

Where are the clear boundaries of change in a hybrid swarm?

Very well...

Now why don't you bring an argument to that effect?

1) Explain what a hybred storm is to the readers.

2) explain how whatever it is in that concept that you believe influenced common descent from protist to mammal, did so.

3) Finally, does this nullify my argment? How?

Sheeze, It's like pulling chicken teeth to get a rational argument out of you people.

1) Look it up. Well, look up "hybrid swarm". I've no idea what a "hybred storm" is. The Wikipedia description is quite succinct, and even someone as lazy as yourself should be able to get through it.

2) Oy, Jerry! Where are you going with those goalposts?

3) Hybrid swarms (and ring species) nullify your argument that there are rigid distinctions between species. They falsify your claim that speciation must involve an organism having offspring which are of a different species.

As I mentioned earlier, you can support your claim by identifying the clear boundaries within the herring gull ring species. Or in any of the others. I'm not bothered.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

i guess all those fishery managers who enforce catch limits on walleyes and saugers are just being assholes. since they can interbreed, according to Jimmy Ray Humpsniff, they aren't different species after all. and he has obviously never met a fucking botanist

Tell me Cletus why haven't you straightened all these poor deluded people out, since you obviously know more about speciation than the people who wrote the damned book?

Somebody called for a botanist?

Jerry, ever heard of hybrid swarms? What about heterostyly* (e.g. dimorphic pin and thrum flowers) in vascular plants that leads to breeding incompatibility between morphs in the same species. Can you explain how these observations fit into your definition of a species and speciation?

* When reminding myself of the proper term via a bit of googling, I came across the following reference:

Darwin, Charles 1862. On the two forms, or dimorphic condition, in the species of Primula, and on their remarkable sexual relations. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society (Botany) 6, 77–96.

Is there anything that guy didn't know at least something about?

No, sorry...I'm not familiar with those concepts.

Perhaps you could explain them and elucidate how you feel they might negatively affect my musings thus far.

IOW, what have I said that those concepts show to be wrong? I've got an open mind.......

They negatively affect this musing, Jerry:

Quote

You're attempting to use a scenario where there is no clear boundary of change to represent a situation where there most certainly is one.

Where are the clear boundaries of change in a hybrid swarm?

Very well...

Now why don't you bring an argument to that effect?

1) Explain what a hybred storm is to the readers.

2) explain how whatever it is in that concept that you believe influenced common descent from protist to mammal, did so.

3) Finally, does this nullify my argment? How?

Sheeze, It's like pulling chicken teeth to get a rational argument out of you people.

1) Look it up. Well, look up "hybrid swarm". I've no idea what a "hybred storm" is. The Wikipedia description is quite succinct, and even someone as lazy as yourself should be able to get through it.

2) Oy, Jerry! Where are you going with those goalposts?

3) Hybrid swarms (and ring species) nullify your argument that there are rigid distinctions between species. They falsify your claim that speciation must involve an organism having offspring which are of a different species.

As I mentioned earlier, you can support your claim by identifying the clear boundaries within the herring gull ring species. Or in any of the others. I'm not bothered.

Hey, JerryVonFtKCrossdresser, you never answered my Original Question about choice of distributions.

Gaussian, Poisson or Bernoulli and why. Should be simple. I could answer it in a sentence - without math!

I know you hate math.

Also, have you figured out that Queue Emm is only a framework like the word "color" and to say that Auntie Emm did something is like saying color did something?

Perhaps we need a poll, a general consensus to determine if you, JimmyBobbyFtKay-ee, are stupider than the most stupid tard to ever grace this forum, you buddy Gary's alter-ego, Joe "ice is not water" G.

Seriously, you may be the dumbest fuck to ever represent dumb fuckery and that's saying something.

Not remotely as stupid as Joe. But it's possible to travel a long, long way from "as stupid as Joe" and still not have left Stupidland.

I see the current Jerry/Gary droolings as a step towards the long-anticipated Grand Unification of Tard, as the Two Stooges attempt to merge ID and quantum quackery. Once they've succesfully combined creationism and Choprawoo, I'm sure they'll be working with Joe on incoporating climate-change denialism, pyramidiocy and associated tinfoilhattery. Then they'll finally have achieved the Tard Theory of Everything.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There would not even be a computer model to submit for review, that ended up coming from email and award and excellent comments plus 5 stars from two reviewers who gave it an honest going over.

Gary, if you read the quoted sentence out loud you might begin to understand that your sentence construction skills are awful. No one knows wtf you're prattling about.

Well at least this will help explain a part of it, that you at best get with a EA/GA or even unconscious IA (Intelligence Algorithm) but it's definitely a step ahead in testing this so well performed scientific hypothesis:

There is no way you could better state that one. The video even has music and artistic clues as to what not being a robot is, and for me reminder to quit smoking. But go ahead, try to impress me that much with your perfect grammar hypothesis, for anything!

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Hey, JerryVonFtKCrossdresser, you never answered my Original Question about choice of distributions.

Gaussian, Poisson or Bernoulli and why. Should be simple. I could answer it in a sentence - without math!

I know you hate math.

Also, have you figured out that Queue Emm is only a framework like the word "color" and to say that Auntie Emm did something is like saying color did something?

Perhaps we need a poll, a general consensus to determine if you, JimmyBobbyFtKay-ee, are stupider than the most stupid tard to ever grace this forum, you buddy Gary's alter-ego, Joe "ice is not water" G.

Seriously, you may be the dumbest fuck to ever represent dumb fuckery and that's saying something.

Not remotely as stupid as Joe. But it's possible to travel a long, long way from "as stupid as Joe" and still not have left Stupidland.

I see the current Jerry/Gary droolings as a step towards the long-anticipated Grand Unification of Tard, as the Two Stooges attempt to merge ID and quantum quackery. Once they've succesfully combined creationism and Choprawoo, I'm sure they'll be working with Joe on incoporating climate-change denialism, pyramidiocy and associated tinfoilhattery. Then they'll finally have achieved the Tard Theory of Everything.

Let me guess...the MORE debates you guys so obviously lose to people, so OBVIOUSLY so, even to the less informed readers, the STUPIDER your opponents get, right?? :D :O :D

Yeah, you're down now to where ONLY about 10% of the students who study this Darwinism crap accept it from a naturalistic perspective.

It won't be long until you're left holding your pollywogs in one hand, your worthless PhDs in nothing in the other, wondering why 100% of the world suddenly got stupid.

Hey, they musta all went nuts and you guys are the only sane people left!